Politics EXPOSING THE DEEP STATE (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...tape-republicans-engage-voter-suppression.amp

A top reelection adviser to President Donald Trump told a group of influential Republicans in Wisconsin that voter suppression is “traditionally” part of the Republican Party’s strategy to compete in battleground states, according to audio obtained by the Associated Press. When asked about it, though, he said his remarks were being misinterpreted and he was referring to the frequent accusations that Republicans take part in such tactics. A liberal advocacy group provided the roughly 20-minute audio of Justin Clark’s remarks at the Republican National Lawyers Association’s Wisconsin chapter to the Associated Press.
 
Oops, that went badly for you. Criminal referrals and expanded investigations.

meanwhile, Obama and Hillary are still free while trump has been impeached and several of his administration or associates are either in prison, have served prison time or awaiting sentencing for prison. trump's legacy will be first president impeached during first term and having the most yes impeachment votes in history.

5dfb46fe855cc224b004c634-1136-852.jpg
 
Oops, that went badly for you. Criminal referrals and expanded investigations.
But still exonerated the initiation of the investigation and cleared everyone of letting their personal political feelings affect their investigation. Wasn't that your original complaint?
 
McCabe apologized for misleading investigators on leak, transcripts show

By Gregg Re | Fox News

McCabe apologizes for changing story on media leak

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has apologized to an FBI investigator for changing his story about leaking to the press, according to newly-released documents.

Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe apologized for lying to federal investigators concerning an October 2016 leak to The Wall Street Journal about the Hillary Clinton email probe, newly released transcripts indicate -- underscoring McCabe's legal jeopardy as U.S. Attorney John Durham continues the Justice Department's criminal probe into bureau misconduct.

The transcripts specifically raised the possibility that McCabe, now a paid CNN commentator, could face a false statements charge similar to the one leveled against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The account of McCabe's remarks was released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general (IG) because of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.

The IG concluded in 2018 that McCabe "lacked candor" when speaking to then-FBI Director James Comey and DOJ Oversight and Review (O&R) internal investigators about the leak to the Journal on May 9, 2017. In the transcripts, released Thursday, an unidentified O&R investigator asserted that McCabe had claimed "he did not grant anyone permission to divulge the information to the media" and that he "personally hadn't shared the information" or "granted anyone else permission to."

But on Aug. 18, 2017, McCabe's story changed when he was confronted with other evidence, including emails and witness accounts, that conflicted with his prior statements. Asked again whether he was aware of the leak to the Journal and had personally authorized it, McCabe was unequivocal.

"And as nice as could be, he said, 'Yep. Yep I did,'" the FBI agent said, according to the transcripts.

The Journal story -- written just days before the presidential election – focused on the FBI announcing the reopening of the Clinton investigation after finding thousands of her emails on a laptop belonging to former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who at the time was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The Journal's account of the call said a senior Justice Department official expressed displeasure to McCabe that FBI agents were still looking into the Clinton Foundation, and that McCabe had defended the agent's authority to pursue the issue.

That leak confirmed the existence of the probe, the report said, which Comey had up to that point refused to do.

Unlike the Flynn case -- in which FBI agents already had access to information about conversations with Russians that they sought from Flynn -- the transcript makes plain that the FBI's probe was derailed by McCabe's fib.

“I remember saying to him, ‘Sir, you understand that we’ve put a lot of work into this based on what you told us,’” the investigating agent told McCabe, according to the documents. “I mean, and I even said, long nights and weekends working on this trying to find out who amongst your ranks of trusted people would, would do something like that. And [McCabe] kind of just looked down, kind of nodded and said, ‘Yeah, I’m sorry.’”


"[McCabe] kind of just looked down, kind of nodded and said, ‘Yeah, I’m sorry.’”

— FBI investigator's account of August 2017 interview with McCabe
The agent said McCabe's lie had caused weeks of investigative "sidetracking," and indicated that criminal liability popped into his mind: “In our business, we stop and say, look, now we’re getting into an area for due process,” the agent said, per the transcript.


The Daily Beast has reported that McCabe's legal team has said he did not quickly correct his misinformation because Comey would be fired shortly after his interview, distracting him.

U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu recommended moving forward with charges against McCabe last year.


But McCabe has denied any wrongdoing and said the inspector general's conclusions relied on mischaracterizations and omissions, including of information favorable to McCabe.

Last year, McCabe sued the FBI and the Justice Department over his March 2018 firing, arguing it was part of Trump's plan to rid the bureau of leaders he perceived as disloyal to him. McCabe argued in his complaint that the two officials responsible for demoting and then firing him -- FBI Director Christopher Wray and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- created a pretext to force him out in accordance with President Trump's wishes.

Fired anti-Trump counterintelligence head Peter Strzok, as well as ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, have also sued over their terminations. Page has even sought to have the government pay for her therapy bills because of Trump's harsh comments about her.
 
McCabe apologized for misleading investigators on leak, transcripts show

By Gregg Re | Fox News

McCabe apologizes for changing story on media leak

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has apologized to an FBI investigator for changing his story about leaking to the press, according to newly-released documents.

Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe apologized for lying to federal investigators concerning an October 2016 leak to The Wall Street Journal about the Hillary Clinton email probe, newly released transcripts indicate -- underscoring McCabe's legal jeopardy as U.S. Attorney John Durham continues the Justice Department's criminal probe into bureau misconduct.

The transcripts specifically raised the possibility that McCabe, now a paid CNN commentator, could face a false statements charge similar to the one leveled against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The account of McCabe's remarks was released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general (IG) because of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.

The IG concluded in 2018 that McCabe "lacked candor" when speaking to then-FBI Director James Comey and DOJ Oversight and Review (O&R) internal investigators about the leak to the Journal on May 9, 2017. In the transcripts, released Thursday, an unidentified O&R investigator asserted that McCabe had claimed "he did not grant anyone permission to divulge the information to the media" and that he "personally hadn't shared the information" or "granted anyone else permission to."

But on Aug. 18, 2017, McCabe's story changed when he was confronted with other evidence, including emails and witness accounts, that conflicted with his prior statements. Asked again whether he was aware of the leak to the Journal and had personally authorized it, McCabe was unequivocal.

"And as nice as could be, he said, 'Yep. Yep I did,'" the FBI agent said, according to the transcripts.

The Journal story -- written just days before the presidential election – focused on the FBI announcing the reopening of the Clinton investigation after finding thousands of her emails on a laptop belonging to former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who at the time was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The Journal's account of the call said a senior Justice Department official expressed displeasure to McCabe that FBI agents were still looking into the Clinton Foundation, and that McCabe had defended the agent's authority to pursue the issue.

That leak confirmed the existence of the probe, the report said, which Comey had up to that point refused to do.

Unlike the Flynn case -- in which FBI agents already had access to information about conversations with Russians that they sought from Flynn -- the transcript makes plain that the FBI's probe was derailed by McCabe's fib.

“I remember saying to him, ‘Sir, you understand that we’ve put a lot of work into this based on what you told us,’” the investigating agent told McCabe, according to the documents. “I mean, and I even said, long nights and weekends working on this trying to find out who amongst your ranks of trusted people would, would do something like that. And [McCabe] kind of just looked down, kind of nodded and said, ‘Yeah, I’m sorry.’”


"[McCabe] kind of just looked down, kind of nodded and said, ‘Yeah, I’m sorry.’”

— FBI investigator's account of August 2017 interview with McCabe
The agent said McCabe's lie had caused weeks of investigative "sidetracking," and indicated that criminal liability popped into his mind: “In our business, we stop and say, look, now we’re getting into an area for due process,” the agent said, per the transcript.


The Daily Beast has reported that McCabe's legal team has said he did not quickly correct his misinformation because Comey would be fired shortly after his interview, distracting him.

U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu recommended moving forward with charges against McCabe last year.


But McCabe has denied any wrongdoing and said the inspector general's conclusions relied on mischaracterizations and omissions, including of information favorable to McCabe.

Last year, McCabe sued the FBI and the Justice Department over his March 2018 firing, arguing it was part of Trump's plan to rid the bureau of leaders he perceived as disloyal to him. McCabe argued in his complaint that the two officials responsible for demoting and then firing him -- FBI Director Christopher Wray and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- created a pretext to force him out in accordance with President Trump's wishes.

Fired anti-Trump counterintelligence head Peter Strzok, as well as ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, have also sued over their terminations. Page has even sought to have the government pay for her therapy bills because of Trump's harsh comments about her.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
 
Probably the most obviously guilty, but least investigated Deep State operative in America is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, The DNC Queen Of Broward County.

Up to her elbows in planting and protecting a foreign spy ring who gained access to every bit of computer data, emails, bill and law drafts, strategies...everything on the computers of nearly every Rep in the Democratic Party. (see article below)

Proven guilty of "legally" rigging the 2016 Democratic Primary for Clinton.

COINCIDENTALLY, Broward County committed massive voter fraud under her watch. Twice.

COINCIDENTALLY, she completely controlled the response to and narrative afterwards for the alleged false-flag mass murder at Broward County's Parkland High School.

The walls are closing in on her...

January 14, 2020 | Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch: Federal Court Orders Snap Hearing on Awan Brothers, Congressional Democrat IT Scandal After DOJ Files Document Under Seal
judicial_tw_jwpressroom-federalcourt_1024x512_v1.1-768x386.jpg

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court yesterday ordered a snap hearing after the Justice Department submitted information under seal on Friday following the court’s demand for an explanation of why no records have been produced in the ongoing legal battle for documents about the Congressional Democrat IT (information technology) scandal involving the Awan brothers. The hearing is set for tomorrow, January 15, at 10 am.

In November 2018, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI over two FOIA requests for records related to the Awan brothers (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02563)).

In August 2019, the Justice Department told the court that it would begin producing records by November 5, 2019. After producing no records, on November 13, 2019, the agency told Judicial Watch that it was having “technical difficulties,” and in a recent email claimed that “difficulties with the production remain.”

In a joint status report filed on December 5, 2019, Judicial Watch reported to the court that the DOJ claimed in a phone call that it was now unable to produce any records to either of the FOIA requests “because the agency was waiting for some unspecified action by Judge [Tanya S.] Chutkan in some other matter so as to avoid having to produce records in this case.” In that same report the DOJ told the court that Judge Chutkan is “presiding over a related sealed criminal matter” that prohibits the government from releasing the requested FOIA information.

In a hearing last month, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta expressed frustration and ordered the Justice Department to explain its failure to produce records by January 10 and to provide Judicial Watch some details about the delay. Instead, the Justice Department made its filing under seal and has yet to provide Judicial Watch with any details about its failure to produce records as promised to the court.

“The cover-up of the Awan Brothers Democratic IT scandal shows the FBI and DOJ’s penchant for dishonesty isn’t just limited to FISA abuse,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The DOJ’s handling of the Awan Brothers case has long been an issue of concern and now we are expected believe some secret investigation prevents the public from knowing the full truth about this scandal. We are skeptical.”

Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after the House’s top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran was “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems,” and that a server containing evidence had gone “missing.” The inspector general said server logs showed “unauthorized access” and procurement records were falsified.

Imran Awan was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-FL) top information technology aide. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was arrested in July 2017, trying to board a flight for Pakistan.

In July 2018, Imran Awan was given a plea deal, and pled guilty to federal bank fraud but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.”

The Awan brothers reportedly “were not given background checks before being given access to highly sensitive government information and no explanations have been given as to why.” Additionally, “If they would have run this background check it would have found out not only multiple criminal convictions, but $1 million bankruptcy, a dozen lawsuits … it would have found a whole host of major red flags and the Democrats didn’t do any of those checks.”

The status hearing is before Judge Amit P. Mehta:

Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Time: 10:00 a.m. ET

Location: Courtroom 10

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

333 Constitution Ave NW

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...-scandal-after-doj-files-document-under-seal/
Washington, DC 20001
 
Probably the most obviously guilty, but least investigated Deep State operative in America is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, The DNC Queen Of Broward County.

Up to her elbows in planting and protecting a foreign spy ring who gained access to every bit of computer data, emails, bill and law drafts, strategies...everything on the computers of nearly every Rep in the Democratic Party. (see article below)

Proven guilty of "legally" rigging the 2016 Democratic Primary for Clinton.

COINCIDENTALLY, Broward County committed massive voter fraud under her watch. Twice.

COINCIDENTALLY, she completely controlled the response to and narrative afterwards for the alleged false-flag mass murder at Broward County's Parkland High School.

The walls are closing in on her...

January 14, 2020 | Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch: Federal Court Orders Snap Hearing on Awan Brothers, Congressional Democrat IT Scandal After DOJ Files Document Under Seal
judicial_tw_jwpressroom-federalcourt_1024x512_v1.1-768x386.jpg

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court yesterday ordered a snap hearing after the Justice Department submitted information under seal on Friday following the court’s demand for an explanation of why no records have been produced in the ongoing legal battle for documents about the Congressional Democrat IT (information technology) scandal involving the Awan brothers. The hearing is set for tomorrow, January 15, at 10 am.

In November 2018, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI over two FOIA requests for records related to the Awan brothers (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02563)).

In August 2019, the Justice Department told the court that it would begin producing records by November 5, 2019. After producing no records, on November 13, 2019, the agency told Judicial Watch that it was having “technical difficulties,” and in a recent email claimed that “difficulties with the production remain.”

In a joint status report filed on December 5, 2019, Judicial Watch reported to the court that the DOJ claimed in a phone call that it was now unable to produce any records to either of the FOIA requests “because the agency was waiting for some unspecified action by Judge [Tanya S.] Chutkan in some other matter so as to avoid having to produce records in this case.” In that same report the DOJ told the court that Judge Chutkan is “presiding over a related sealed criminal matter” that prohibits the government from releasing the requested FOIA information.

In a hearing last month, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta expressed frustration and ordered the Justice Department to explain its failure to produce records by January 10 and to provide Judicial Watch some details about the delay. Instead, the Justice Department made its filing under seal and has yet to provide Judicial Watch with any details about its failure to produce records as promised to the court.

“The cover-up of the Awan Brothers Democratic IT scandal shows the FBI and DOJ’s penchant for dishonesty isn’t just limited to FISA abuse,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The DOJ’s handling of the Awan Brothers case has long been an issue of concern and now we are expected believe some secret investigation prevents the public from knowing the full truth about this scandal. We are skeptical.”

Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after the House’s top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran was “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems,” and that a server containing evidence had gone “missing.” The inspector general said server logs showed “unauthorized access” and procurement records were falsified.

Imran Awan was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-FL) top information technology aide. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was arrested in July 2017, trying to board a flight for Pakistan.

In July 2018, Imran Awan was given a plea deal, and pled guilty to federal bank fraud but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.”

The Awan brothers reportedly “were not given background checks before being given access to highly sensitive government information and no explanations have been given as to why.” Additionally, “If they would have run this background check it would have found out not only multiple criminal convictions, but $1 million bankruptcy, a dozen lawsuits … it would have found a whole host of major red flags and the Democrats didn’t do any of those checks.”

The status hearing is before Judge Amit P. Mehta:

Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Time: 10:00 a.m. ET

Location: Courtroom 10

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

333 Constitution Ave NW

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...-scandal-after-doj-files-document-under-seal/
Washington, DC 20001
Judicial Watch? Oh man, she's toast.
 
Truth is eternal.

No, like I've pointed out before, in your alternate universe, much like your Fuhrer, "truth" is whatever you perceive it to be.

Just saying something doesn't make it factual.
 
Deep State Ambassador be going to jail soon.

January 17, 2020 | Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch Sues State Dept. for Records Tied to Alleged Monitoring of Trump Family and Journalists by Amb. Marie Yovanovitch
Judicial_FB_JWPressRoom-Yonanovitch_1200x627_v1.1-768x401.jpg

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the State Department for documents tied to the alleged monitoring of President Trump’s family, lawyer, and journalists, as ordered by US Ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:20-cv-00126)) and (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State(No. 1:20-cv-00124).

In October 2019, Judicial Watch began its investigation into the alleged monitoring, via CrowdTangle and other means, of journalists and persons linked to President Trump. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch is alleged to have ordered State Department entities to conduct the monitoring. The list of the alleged targets includes:

Jack Posobiec

Donald Trump Jr.

Laura Ingraham

Sean Hannity

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)

Dan Bongino

Ryan Saavedra

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

John Solomon

Lou Dobbs

Pamella Geller

Sara Carter

Amb. Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: “Biden,” “Giuliani,” “Soros” and “Yovanovitch.” As Judicial Watch previously reported:

Prior to being recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in the spring Yovanovitch reportedly created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means. Ukraine embassy staff made the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. After several days, Yovanovitch’s staff was informed that the request was illegal and the monitoring either ceased or was concealed via the State Department Global Engagement Center, which has looser restrictions on collecting information.

“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” according to a senior State Department official. If the illicit operation occurred, it seems to indicate a clear political bias against the president and his supporters. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who has also led American embassies in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016. She was recalled by the State Department in May and remains a State Department employee in Washington D.C.

The two Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits were filed after the State Department failed to respond to October 9 and October 23, 2019, requests for documents about both “the monitoring of any U.S.-based journalist, reporter, or media commentator by any employee or office of the Department of State.” and the CrowdTangle social media monitoring program.

On October 10, 2019, Congressman Devin Nunes told Sean Hannity on his program that, “What I’ve heard is that there were strange requests, irregular requests to monitor not just one journalist, but multiple journalists…” Hannity followed this statement by adding, multiple sources also told him that they, “believe there is evidence that government resources were used to monitor communications” of U.S. journalists and that Yovanovitch may have been involved. Yovanovitch was questioned on the issue during the impeachment proceeding in the House and seemed to deny any illegal monitoring took place.

Q: Could you help us understand how the embassy and the State Department back in Washington collects information on social media?

A: I can’t really answer the question, because I don’t know all the inner details of how the press section works to gather information. But they provide us with a press summary, or they used to provide me, I mean. They provide the embassy with a press summary and it goes out to other people at the State Department as well.

Q: And is part of that monitoring social media accounts from …

A: Yeah. I mean, in today’s age, yeah, social media is really important.

“Was the Ukraine Embassy illegally monitoring American critics of Ambassador Yovanovitch?” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disturbing that the State Department stonewalled Judicial Watch’s requests for information on this controversy until after the impeachment of President Trump.”

Also in November 2019, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the State Department seeking documents related to a reported “untouchables list” given in late 2016 by Yovanovitch to Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. Lutsenko told The New York Times that Yovanovitch “pressed him not to prosecute anti-corruption activists.” Lutsenko reportedly said earlier the do-not-prosecute list included a founder of the Ukraine group Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), which was funded by Soros foundations and the U.S. federal government, and two members of the Ukrainian Parliament who vocally supported the Soros group’s agenda.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ily-and-journalists-by-amb-marie-yovanovitch/
 
Deep State Ambassador be going to jail soon.

January 17, 2020 | Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch Sues State Dept. for Records Tied to Alleged Monitoring of Trump Family and Journalists by Amb. Marie Yovanovitch
Judicial_FB_JWPressRoom-Yonanovitch_1200x627_v1.1-768x401.jpg

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the State Department for documents tied to the alleged monitoring of President Trump’s family, lawyer, and journalists, as ordered by US Ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:20-cv-00126)) and (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State(No. 1:20-cv-00124).

In October 2019, Judicial Watch began its investigation into the alleged monitoring, via CrowdTangle and other means, of journalists and persons linked to President Trump. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch is alleged to have ordered State Department entities to conduct the monitoring. The list of the alleged targets includes:

Jack Posobiec

Donald Trump Jr.

Laura Ingraham

Sean Hannity

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)

Dan Bongino

Ryan Saavedra

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

John Solomon

Lou Dobbs

Pamella Geller

Sara Carter

Amb. Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: “Biden,” “Giuliani,” “Soros” and “Yovanovitch.” As Judicial Watch previously reported:

Prior to being recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in the spring Yovanovitch reportedly created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means. Ukraine embassy staff made the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. After several days, Yovanovitch’s staff was informed that the request was illegal and the monitoring either ceased or was concealed via the State Department Global Engagement Center, which has looser restrictions on collecting information.

“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” according to a senior State Department official. If the illicit operation occurred, it seems to indicate a clear political bias against the president and his supporters. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who has also led American embassies in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016. She was recalled by the State Department in May and remains a State Department employee in Washington D.C.

The two Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits were filed after the State Department failed to respond to October 9 and October 23, 2019, requests for documents about both “the monitoring of any U.S.-based journalist, reporter, or media commentator by any employee or office of the Department of State.” and the CrowdTangle social media monitoring program.

On October 10, 2019, Congressman Devin Nunes told Sean Hannity on his program that, “What I’ve heard is that there were strange requests, irregular requests to monitor not just one journalist, but multiple journalists…” Hannity followed this statement by adding, multiple sources also told him that they, “believe there is evidence that government resources were used to monitor communications” of U.S. journalists and that Yovanovitch may have been involved. Yovanovitch was questioned on the issue during the impeachment proceeding in the House and seemed to deny any illegal monitoring took place.

Q: Could you help us understand how the embassy and the State Department back in Washington collects information on social media?

A: I can’t really answer the question, because I don’t know all the inner details of how the press section works to gather information. But they provide us with a press summary, or they used to provide me, I mean. They provide the embassy with a press summary and it goes out to other people at the State Department as well.

Q: And is part of that monitoring social media accounts from …

A: Yeah. I mean, in today’s age, yeah, social media is really important.

“Was the Ukraine Embassy illegally monitoring American critics of Ambassador Yovanovitch?” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disturbing that the State Department stonewalled Judicial Watch’s requests for information on this controversy until after the impeachment of President Trump.”

Also in November 2019, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the State Department seeking documents related to a reported “untouchables list” given in late 2016 by Yovanovitch to Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. Lutsenko told The New York Times that Yovanovitch “pressed him not to prosecute anti-corruption activists.” Lutsenko reportedly said earlier the do-not-prosecute list included a founder of the Ukraine group Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), which was funded by Soros foundations and the U.S. federal government, and two members of the Ukrainian Parliament who vocally supported the Soros group’s agenda.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ily-and-journalists-by-amb-marie-yovanovitch/


"Judicial Watch"?......LMFAO !

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/


Keep trying young Skywalker.
 
Deep State Ambassador be going to jail soon.

January 17, 2020 | Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch Sues State Dept. for Records Tied to Alleged Monitoring of Trump Family and Journalists by Amb. Marie Yovanovitch
Judicial_FB_JWPressRoom-Yonanovitch_1200x627_v1.1-768x401.jpg

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the State Department for documents tied to the alleged monitoring of President Trump’s family, lawyer, and journalists, as ordered by US Ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:20-cv-00126)) and (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State(No. 1:20-cv-00124).

In October 2019, Judicial Watch began its investigation into the alleged monitoring, via CrowdTangle and other means, of journalists and persons linked to President Trump. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch is alleged to have ordered State Department entities to conduct the monitoring. The list of the alleged targets includes:

Jack Posobiec

Donald Trump Jr.

Laura Ingraham

Sean Hannity

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)

Dan Bongino

Ryan Saavedra

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

John Solomon

Lou Dobbs

Pamella Geller

Sara Carter

Amb. Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: “Biden,” “Giuliani,” “Soros” and “Yovanovitch.” As Judicial Watch previously reported:

Prior to being recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in the spring Yovanovitch reportedly created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means. Ukraine embassy staff made the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. After several days, Yovanovitch’s staff was informed that the request was illegal and the monitoring either ceased or was concealed via the State Department Global Engagement Center, which has looser restrictions on collecting information.

“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” according to a senior State Department official. If the illicit operation occurred, it seems to indicate a clear political bias against the president and his supporters. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who has also led American embassies in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016. She was recalled by the State Department in May and remains a State Department employee in Washington D.C.

The two Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits were filed after the State Department failed to respond to October 9 and October 23, 2019, requests for documents about both “the monitoring of any U.S.-based journalist, reporter, or media commentator by any employee or office of the Department of State.” and the CrowdTangle social media monitoring program.

On October 10, 2019, Congressman Devin Nunes told Sean Hannity on his program that, “What I’ve heard is that there were strange requests, irregular requests to monitor not just one journalist, but multiple journalists…” Hannity followed this statement by adding, multiple sources also told him that they, “believe there is evidence that government resources were used to monitor communications” of U.S. journalists and that Yovanovitch may have been involved. Yovanovitch was questioned on the issue during the impeachment proceeding in the House and seemed to deny any illegal monitoring took place.

Q: Could you help us understand how the embassy and the State Department back in Washington collects information on social media?

A: I can’t really answer the question, because I don’t know all the inner details of how the press section works to gather information. But they provide us with a press summary, or they used to provide me, I mean. They provide the embassy with a press summary and it goes out to other people at the State Department as well.

Q: And is part of that monitoring social media accounts from …

A: Yeah. I mean, in today’s age, yeah, social media is really important.

“Was the Ukraine Embassy illegally monitoring American critics of Ambassador Yovanovitch?” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disturbing that the State Department stonewalled Judicial Watch’s requests for information on this controversy until after the impeachment of President Trump.”

Also in November 2019, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the State Department seeking documents related to a reported “untouchables list” given in late 2016 by Yovanovitch to Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. Lutsenko told The New York Times that Yovanovitch “pressed him not to prosecute anti-corruption activists.” Lutsenko reportedly said earlier the do-not-prosecute list included a founder of the Ukraine group Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), which was funded by Soros foundations and the U.S. federal government, and two members of the Ukrainian Parliament who vocally supported the Soros group’s agenda.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ily-and-journalists-by-amb-marie-yovanovitch/
Ambassador Sondland is going to prison?
 
US informant may have received taxpayer funds to spy on Trump campaign, Grassley says

By Gregg Re | Fox News

The Department of Defense may have used taxpayer funds to pay longtime informant Stefan Halper, a Cambridge University professor, to recruit members of the Trump campaign as sources in the run-up to the 2016 election, Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in an explosive letter on Wednesday.

Grassley, writing to James Baker, the director of the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) at the Defense Department, or DOD, also flagged other suspicious payments to Halper -- including some for DOD contracts that he may not have performed, and others from "unknown" foreign entities. (In response to a lawsuit last year alleging that he was part of a smear campaign to discredit the Trump campaign, Halper claimed a kind of immunity ordinarily afforded to government agents.)

The GOP senator asserted that it was "unacceptable" that the DOD spent most of 2019 dodging his requests for information about Halper's contacts with U.S. officials, before saying that the information the DOD has provided raised more troubling questions. The ONA essentially functions as the Pentagon's internal think tank.

In one DOD contract awarded in September 2015, Grassley noted, "Professor Halper lists former Deputy Foreign Minister for Russia, Vyacheslav Trubnikov, as a consultant and advisor to a paper delivered" to ONA.

That's significant, Grassley went on, because Trubnikov is a "known Russian intelligence officer, who was listed by Christopher Steele as a source in the now-debunked Steele dossier, which was used as a predicate to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page."

CARTER PAGE FISA WARRANTS LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE, DOJ ADMITS IN BOMBSHELL FILING

Page previously told Fox News that Halper "intensified" communications with him just prior to the FISA warrant application.

Stefan20Halper.jpg

Professor Stefan Halper is at the center of a Republican complaint with the DOD over questionable payments. (Voice of America, File)

"I had a longstanding relationship with Professor Halper," Page told host Maria Bartiromo. "I always believe in 'innocent until proven guilty,' but my conversations with him intensified right in the month before my illegitimate FISA warrant in September 2016, when all these defamatory articles are being placed by the [Democratic National Committee]. ... Professor Halper was being very positive, you know, like a Harriet Tubman figure. He understands sort of the injustices, or he presented himself as understanding that ... and I sort of trusted him."

The DOJ acknowledged on Thursday that the Page FISA warrants were legally insufficient and should never have been issued. Much of the Steele dossier has been proved unsubstantiated, including the dossier's claims that the Trump campaign was paying hackers based out of a non-existent Russian consulate in Miami or that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to conspire with Russians. Special Counsel Robert Mueller also was unable to substantiate the dossier's claims that Page had received a large payment relating to the sale of a share of Rosneft, a Russian oil giant, or that a lurid blackmail tape involving the president existed.

"It is unclear from the contracting officer file whether Professor Halper paid Trubnikov for his assistance in gathering information for this paper, or in what capacity Professor Halper interacted with Trubnikov during the course of performing work for this contract," Grassley said. "Further, reports indicate that Halper offered [former Trump aide] George Papadopoulos $3,000 for assistance in completing an energy study and met Carter Page at a Cambridge conference. Given Professor Halper’s intelligence connections and government funding, it is reasonable to ask whether he used any taxpayer money in his attempt to recruit Trump campaign officials as sources."

Papadopoulos has told Fox News that his meetings with Halper were "clearly" part of a CIA operation.

Additionally, Halper was apparently paid for some work he did not perform, raising the question of whether he was actually providing some off-the-books services, Grassley noted.

And, the senator wrote, "Halper’s file for a contract, awarded in September 2016, also contains unusual references to unknown third parties paying for portions of his travel and hotel expenses for a trip to Japan where he conducted several interviews with Japanese officials for a government project relating to the relationship between China and India." The unusual payments, Grassley said, raise the "question as to who exactly paid for the travel and hotel expenses and why?"

PAGE TELLS FOX NEWS THAT HALPER 'INTENSIFIED' COMMS JUST PRIOR TO FISA WARRANT

Grassley flagged other potentially problematic ONA projects, including a paper that "focuses largely on Vladimir Putin’s neurological development and potential Asperger’s diagnosis."

"The fact that taxpayer money was used to support these projects calls into question ONA’s ability to be a proper steward of the people’s money and whether ONA has acted consistent with its mission and purpose," Grassley said.

He demanded that DOD explain how much it paid for papers like the Putin deep dive, as well as more information on Halper's contacts with U.S. officials.

"Did Professor Halper ever disclose his relationship with former Deputy Foreign Minister for Russia Vyacheslav Trubnikov to yourself or any other ONA official prior to completion of contract number HQ0034-15-C-0100 (The Russia-China Relationship: The Impact on the United States’ Security)?" Grassley asked. "Does this relationship with a Russian intelligence officer suggest that there may be biased and unreliable information contained within the deliverable?"

He continued: "Can ONA state for certain that Halper did not use taxpayer money provided by DoD to recruit, or attempt to recruit, sources for the FBI investigation into the now-debunked theory of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? Are you, or any other ONA official, aware of any other relationships Professor Halper had with foreign intelligence officers?"

Matt Wolking, the Trump campaign's deputy director of communications, called the DOD's actions as described in Grassley's letter "shady as hell."

"Grassley raises questions about whether Stefan Halper's work for DOD at taxpayer expense was 'influenced by foreign individuals or entities,'" Wolking wrote. "Seems like a good question given Halper's collaboration with a known Russian intelligence officer."

Wolking added: "Did Halper use taxpayer money to target the Trump campaign?"
 
Carter Page FISA warrant lacked probable cause, declassified DOJ assessment finds

By Gregg Re, Brooke Singman | Fox News

At least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause, according to a newly declassified summary of a Justice Department assessment released Thursday by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

The DOJ's determination essentially means that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant authorizations to surveil Page, when stripped of the FBI's misinformation, did not meet the necessary legal threshold and should never have been issued.

“Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system," Page said in a statement to Fox News. "I hope that this latest admission of guilt for these civil rights abuses by the Justice Department marks continued progress towards restoring justice and remedying these reputationally ruinous injuries.”

Added Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, who previously chaired the Judiciary Committee: “It’s about time. It’s about time federal authorities entrusted with our most powerful and intrusive surveillance tools begin to own up to their failures and abuses, and take steps to restore public confidence. ... Time will tell if the department will continue working to fix its errors and restore trust that it won’t disregard Americans’ civil liberties. Its admission and cooperation with the FISC is a step in the right direction."

FISC Presiding Judge James Boasberg, in the Jan. 7 order that was published for the first time Thursday, further required the government to explain in a written statement by Jan. 28 the "FBI's handling of information" obtained through the Page warrants and subsequent renewals.

Boasberg specifically noted the DOJ found "there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power" because of the "material misstatements and omissions" in the warrant applications.

Although the DOJ assessment technically only covered two of the applications to renew the Page FISA warrant, the DOJ "apparently does not take a position on the validity" on the first two Page FISA applications, Boasberg said, seemingly indicating that the DOJ seemingly did not want to defend their legality either. The government "intends to sequester information acquired pursuant to those" FISA applications "in the same manner as information acquired pursuant to the subsequent dockets," the judge said.

The June 2017 Page FISA warrant renewal, which was among the two deemed invalid by the DOJ, was approved by then-Acting FBI Director (and now CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The April 2017 warrant renewal was approved by then-FBI Director James Comey.

Boasberg noted that it is illegal for the government to intentionally disclose or use "information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having any reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized." A lawful FISA warrant, when approved by the FISC, allows the FBI to surveil not only the target of the warrant, but also individuals who communicate with the target and the target's associates.


The revelations Thursday were yet another embarrassment for the FBI, which DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found made repeated errors and misrepresentations -- and, in one case, deliberately falsified evidence -- before the FISC as the bureau sought to surveil Page in 2016 and 2017.

The FBI's FISA applications to monitor Page heavily relied, Horowitz confirmed, on a now-discredited dossier funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC), as well as on news reports that secretly relied on the dossier's author.

Much of the Steele dossier has been proved unsubstantiated, including the dossier's claims that the Trump campaign was paying hackers in the United States out of a non-existent Russian consulate in Miami, or that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to conspire with Russians. Special Counsel Robert Mueller also was unable to substantiate the dossier's claims that Page had received a large payment relating to the sale of a share of Rosneft, a Russian oil giant, or that a lurid blackmail tape involving the president existed.

Pursuant to Boasberg's order, the government must also sequester relevant information and provide further "explanations" concerning the damning findings of bureau misconduct contained in Horowitz's recent report, as well as "related investigations and any litigation."

That could be a reference to a variety of outstanding matters concerning the FBI's apparent mischaracterization of evidence before the FISC.

For example, the FISC has already ordered the bureau to look at all previous FISA applications involving ex-FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, whom Horowitz found to have doctored an email from the CIA. The FBI had reached out to the CIA and other intelligence agencies for information on Page; the CIA responded in an email by telling the FBI that Page had contacts with Russians from 2008 to 2013, but that Page had reported them to the CIA and was serving as a CIA operational contact and informant on Russian business and intelligence interests.

Clinesmith then allegedly doctored the CIA's email about Page to make it seem as though the agency had said only that Page was not an active source. The FBI also included Page's contacts with Russians in the warrant application as evidence he was a foreign "agent," without disclosing to the secret surveillance court that Page was voluntarily working with the CIA concerning those foreign contacts.

"Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system."

— Former Trump aide Carter Page
Further, Horowitz found specific evidence of oversights and errors by several top FBI employees as they sought to obtain a warrant to surveil Page. In particular, an unidentified FBI supervisory special agent (SSA) mentioned in the IG report was responsible for ensuring that the bureau's "Woods Procedures" were followed in the Page warrant application, but apparently didn't do so.

According to the procedures, factual assertions need to be independently verified, and information contradicting those assertions must be presented to the court. Horowitz found several instances in which the procedures were not followed. Horowitz's report leaves little doubt that the unnamed SSA is Joe Pientka -- a current bureau employee.

Pientka briefly appeared on the FBI's website as an "Assistant Special Agent in Charge" of the San Francisco field office late last year, according to the Internet archive Wayback Machine -- although Pientka no longer appears on any FBI website. Pientka was removed shortly after Fox News identified him as the unnamed SSA in the IG report. Twitter user Techno Fog first flagged the Wayback Machine's archive of the page.

The FBI has repeatedly refused to respond to Fox News' request for clarification on Pientka's status, even as Republicans in Congress have sought to question him.

While the FBI has promised corrective action, it apparently has not gone far enough. Earlier this month, David Kris, who has been appointed by the FISC to oversee the FBI's proposed surveillance reforms, alerted the court that the bureau's proposals are "insufficient" and must be dramatically "expanded" -- even declaring that FBI Director Christopher Wray needs to discuss the importance of accuracy and transparency before the FISC every time he "visits a field office in 2020."

The unclassified findings were a stark rebuke to Wray, who had filed assurances to the FISC that the agency was implementing new procedures and training programs to assure that the FBI presents accurate and thorough information when it seeks secret warrants from FISC judges. At the same time, Wray acknowledged the FBI's "unacceptable" failures as it pursued FISA warrants to monitor Page.

Kris is a former Obama administration attorney who has previously defended the FISA process on "The Rachel Maddow Show" and in other left-wing venues, making his rebuke of Wray something of an unexpected redemptive moment for Republicans who have long called for more accountability in how the bureau obtains surveillance warrants. ("You can’t make this up!" President Trump tweeted on Sunday. "David Kris, a highly controversial former DOJ official, was just appointed by the FISA Court to oversee reforms to the FBI’s surveillance procedures. Zero credibility. THE SWAMP!”)

Wray had specifically promised to change relevant forms to "emphasize the need to err on the side of disclosure" to the FISC, to create a new "checklist" to be completed "during the drafting process" for surveillance warrants that reminds agents to include "relevant information" about the bias of sources used, and to "formalize" the role of FBI lawyers in the legal review process of surveillance warrants.

Additionally, Wray said the FBI would now require "agents and supervisors" to confirm with the DOJ Office of Intelligence that the DOJ has been advised of relevant information. Wray further indicated that the FBI would formalize requirements to "reverify facts presented in prior FISA applications and make any necessary corrections," as well as to make unspecified "technological improvements."

But in a 15-page letter to Judge Boasberg, obtained by Fox News, Kris declared that the proposed corrective actions "do not go far enough to provide the Court with the necessary assurance of accuracy, and therefore must be expanded and improved" -- and he took aim at Wray himself.

"The focus on specific forms, checklists and technology, while appropriate, should not be allowed to eclipse the more basic need to improve cooperation between the FBI and DOJ attorneys," Kris said, noting that the FBI and DOJ have historically not always worked well together.

"A key method of improving organizational culture is through improved tone at the top, particularly in a hierarchical organization such as the FBI," Kris said, noting that Wray's public statements on the matter, while positive, have not gone far enough. "Director Wray and other FBI leaders, as well as relevant leaders at the Department of Justice, should include discussions of compliance not only in one or two messages, but in virtually every significant communication with the workforce for the foreseeable future."

Republican calls for more accountability may not go unanswered for long. Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham announced last year that he did not "agree" with the IG's assessment that the FBI's probes were properly predicated, highlighting Durham's broader criminal mandate and scope of review.

Durham is focusing on foreign actors, as well as the CIA, while Horowitz concentrated his attention on the Justice Department and FBI.

"Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened," Durham said in his statement, adding that his "investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department" and "has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S."
 
Carter Page FISA warrant lacked probable cause, declassified DOJ assessment finds

By Gregg Re, Brooke Singman | Fox News

At least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause, according to a newly declassified summary of a Justice Department assessment released Thursday by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

The DOJ's determination essentially means that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant authorizations to surveil Page, when stripped of the FBI's misinformation, did not meet the necessary legal threshold and should never have been issued.

“Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system," Page said in a statement to Fox News. "I hope that this latest admission of guilt for these civil rights abuses by the Justice Department marks continued progress towards restoring justice and remedying these reputationally ruinous injuries.”

Added Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, who previously chaired the Judiciary Committee: “It’s about time. It’s about time federal authorities entrusted with our most powerful and intrusive surveillance tools begin to own up to their failures and abuses, and take steps to restore public confidence. ... Time will tell if the department will continue working to fix its errors and restore trust that it won’t disregard Americans’ civil liberties. Its admission and cooperation with the FISC is a step in the right direction."

FISC Presiding Judge James Boasberg, in the Jan. 7 order that was published for the first time Thursday, further required the government to explain in a written statement by Jan. 28 the "FBI's handling of information" obtained through the Page warrants and subsequent renewals.

Boasberg specifically noted the DOJ found "there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power" because of the "material misstatements and omissions" in the warrant applications.

Although the DOJ assessment technically only covered two of the applications to renew the Page FISA warrant, the DOJ "apparently does not take a position on the validity" on the first two Page FISA applications, Boasberg said, seemingly indicating that the DOJ seemingly did not want to defend their legality either. The government "intends to sequester information acquired pursuant to those" FISA applications "in the same manner as information acquired pursuant to the subsequent dockets," the judge said.

The June 2017 Page FISA warrant renewal, which was among the two deemed invalid by the DOJ, was approved by then-Acting FBI Director (and now CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The April 2017 warrant renewal was approved by then-FBI Director James Comey.

Boasberg noted that it is illegal for the government to intentionally disclose or use "information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having any reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized." A lawful FISA warrant, when approved by the FISC, allows the FBI to surveil not only the target of the warrant, but also individuals who communicate with the target and the target's associates.


The revelations Thursday were yet another embarrassment for the FBI, which DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found made repeated errors and misrepresentations -- and, in one case, deliberately falsified evidence -- before the FISC as the bureau sought to surveil Page in 2016 and 2017.

The FBI's FISA applications to monitor Page heavily relied, Horowitz confirmed, on a now-discredited dossier funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC), as well as on news reports that secretly relied on the dossier's author.

Much of the Steele dossier has been proved unsubstantiated, including the dossier's claims that the Trump campaign was paying hackers in the United States out of a non-existent Russian consulate in Miami, or that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to conspire with Russians. Special Counsel Robert Mueller also was unable to substantiate the dossier's claims that Page had received a large payment relating to the sale of a share of Rosneft, a Russian oil giant, or that a lurid blackmail tape involving the president existed.

Pursuant to Boasberg's order, the government must also sequester relevant information and provide further "explanations" concerning the damning findings of bureau misconduct contained in Horowitz's recent report, as well as "related investigations and any litigation."

That could be a reference to a variety of outstanding matters concerning the FBI's apparent mischaracterization of evidence before the FISC.

For example, the FISC has already ordered the bureau to look at all previous FISA applications involving ex-FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, whom Horowitz found to have doctored an email from the CIA. The FBI had reached out to the CIA and other intelligence agencies for information on Page; the CIA responded in an email by telling the FBI that Page had contacts with Russians from 2008 to 2013, but that Page had reported them to the CIA and was serving as a CIA operational contact and informant on Russian business and intelligence interests.

Clinesmith then allegedly doctored the CIA's email about Page to make it seem as though the agency had said only that Page was not an active source. The FBI also included Page's contacts with Russians in the warrant application as evidence he was a foreign "agent," without disclosing to the secret surveillance court that Page was voluntarily working with the CIA concerning those foreign contacts.

"Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system."

— Former Trump aide Carter Page
Further, Horowitz found specific evidence of oversights and errors by several top FBI employees as they sought to obtain a warrant to surveil Page. In particular, an unidentified FBI supervisory special agent (SSA) mentioned in the IG report was responsible for ensuring that the bureau's "Woods Procedures" were followed in the Page warrant application, but apparently didn't do so.

According to the procedures, factual assertions need to be independently verified, and information contradicting those assertions must be presented to the court. Horowitz found several instances in which the procedures were not followed. Horowitz's report leaves little doubt that the unnamed SSA is Joe Pientka -- a current bureau employee.

Pientka briefly appeared on the FBI's website as an "Assistant Special Agent in Charge" of the San Francisco field office late last year, according to the Internet archive Wayback Machine -- although Pientka no longer appears on any FBI website. Pientka was removed shortly after Fox News identified him as the unnamed SSA in the IG report. Twitter user Techno Fog first flagged the Wayback Machine's archive of the page.

The FBI has repeatedly refused to respond to Fox News' request for clarification on Pientka's status, even as Republicans in Congress have sought to question him.

While the FBI has promised corrective action, it apparently has not gone far enough. Earlier this month, David Kris, who has been appointed by the FISC to oversee the FBI's proposed surveillance reforms, alerted the court that the bureau's proposals are "insufficient" and must be dramatically "expanded" -- even declaring that FBI Director Christopher Wray needs to discuss the importance of accuracy and transparency before the FISC every time he "visits a field office in 2020."

The unclassified findings were a stark rebuke to Wray, who had filed assurances to the FISC that the agency was implementing new procedures and training programs to assure that the FBI presents accurate and thorough information when it seeks secret warrants from FISC judges. At the same time, Wray acknowledged the FBI's "unacceptable" failures as it pursued FISA warrants to monitor Page.

Kris is a former Obama administration attorney who has previously defended the FISA process on "The Rachel Maddow Show" and in other left-wing venues, making his rebuke of Wray something of an unexpected redemptive moment for Republicans who have long called for more accountability in how the bureau obtains surveillance warrants. ("You can’t make this up!" President Trump tweeted on Sunday. "David Kris, a highly controversial former DOJ official, was just appointed by the FISA Court to oversee reforms to the FBI’s surveillance procedures. Zero credibility. THE SWAMP!”)

Wray had specifically promised to change relevant forms to "emphasize the need to err on the side of disclosure" to the FISC, to create a new "checklist" to be completed "during the drafting process" for surveillance warrants that reminds agents to include "relevant information" about the bias of sources used, and to "formalize" the role of FBI lawyers in the legal review process of surveillance warrants.

Additionally, Wray said the FBI would now require "agents and supervisors" to confirm with the DOJ Office of Intelligence that the DOJ has been advised of relevant information. Wray further indicated that the FBI would formalize requirements to "reverify facts presented in prior FISA applications and make any necessary corrections," as well as to make unspecified "technological improvements."

But in a 15-page letter to Judge Boasberg, obtained by Fox News, Kris declared that the proposed corrective actions "do not go far enough to provide the Court with the necessary assurance of accuracy, and therefore must be expanded and improved" -- and he took aim at Wray himself.

"The focus on specific forms, checklists and technology, while appropriate, should not be allowed to eclipse the more basic need to improve cooperation between the FBI and DOJ attorneys," Kris said, noting that the FBI and DOJ have historically not always worked well together.

"A key method of improving organizational culture is through improved tone at the top, particularly in a hierarchical organization such as the FBI," Kris said, noting that Wray's public statements on the matter, while positive, have not gone far enough. "Director Wray and other FBI leaders, as well as relevant leaders at the Department of Justice, should include discussions of compliance not only in one or two messages, but in virtually every significant communication with the workforce for the foreseeable future."

Republican calls for more accountability may not go unanswered for long. Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham announced last year that he did not "agree" with the IG's assessment that the FBI's probes were properly predicated, highlighting Durham's broader criminal mandate and scope of review.

Durham is focusing on foreign actors, as well as the CIA, while Horowitz concentrated his attention on the Justice Department and FBI.

"Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened," Durham said in his statement, adding that his "investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department" and "has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S."
Explain to me why there will never be an associated indictment.
 
'Certainly will be a standout': John Durham appoints new criminal chief
by Daniel Chaitin
| January 27, 2020 08:52 PM

  • The federal prosecutor in charge of the Justice Department inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation appointed a new criminal division chief.

    John Durham, a U.S. attorney from Connecticut, announced on Monday that the role will be taken by Sarah Karwan, who has prosecuted a wide variety of criminal cases.

    “I am thrilled that Sarah Karwan will lead our criminal division,” Durham said in a statement. “During her more than 12 years as an [assistant U.S. attorney], Sarah has done it all, prosecuting violent criminals, drug traffickers, financial fraudsters, corrupt public officials, and a wide variety of other wrongdoers. Given the breadth of her experience and her exceptional lawyering skills, she certainly will be a standout as our new criminal chief.”

    Karwan replaced William Nardini, who now has a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. She graduated from the College of William and Mary in 1997 and from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 2000. Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2007, she spent roughly six years in the private sector specializing in securities litigation.

    As head of the criminal division, Karwan will oversee the violent crimes and narcotics, financial fraud and public corruption, national security and cybercrime, and major crimes program-based units.

    Durham has been tasked by Attorney General William Barr with conducting a review of the FBI's Russia investigation.

    In October, it was reported that Durham was expanding the scope of his investigation, adding agents and resources, to examine the post-election timeline up to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel in May 2017. The "investigation into the investigators" was reported to be upgraded to a criminal inquiry later that month, which gives Durham the power to impanel a grand jury and hand down indictments.

    Durham's team is exploring whether a crime was committed by Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who was found by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to have altered a document during the FBI's efforts to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal to continue wiretapping onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
 
'Certainly will be a standout': John Durham appoints new criminal chief
by Daniel Chaitin
| January 27, 2020 08:52 PM

  • The federal prosecutor in charge of the Justice Department inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation appointed a new criminal division chief.

    John Durham, a U.S. attorney from Connecticut, announced on Monday that the role will be taken by Sarah Karwan, who has prosecuted a wide variety of criminal cases.

    “I am thrilled that Sarah Karwan will lead our criminal division,” Durham said in a statement. “During her more than 12 years as an [assistant U.S. attorney], Sarah has done it all, prosecuting violent criminals, drug traffickers, financial fraudsters, corrupt public officials, and a wide variety of other wrongdoers. Given the breadth of her experience and her exceptional lawyering skills, she certainly will be a standout as our new criminal chief.”

    Karwan replaced William Nardini, who now has a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. She graduated from the College of William and Mary in 1997 and from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 2000. Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2007, she spent roughly six years in the private sector specializing in securities litigation.

    As head of the criminal division, Karwan will oversee the violent crimes and narcotics, financial fraud and public corruption, national security and cybercrime, and major crimes program-based units.

    Durham has been tasked by Attorney General William Barr with conducting a review of the FBI's Russia investigation.

    In October, it was reported that Durham was expanding the scope of his investigation, adding agents and resources, to examine the post-election timeline up to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel in May 2017. The "investigation into the investigators" was reported to be upgraded to a criminal inquiry later that month, which gives Durham the power to impanel a grand jury and hand down indictments.

    Durham's team is exploring whether a crime was committed by Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who was found by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to have altered a document during the FBI's efforts to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal to continue wiretapping onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Ever notice how many of your posts end up being nothing burgers? :biglaugh:
 
Treasury complies with GOP Senate inquiry, hands over highly confidential info on Hunter Biden, report says

By Edmund DeMarche | Fox News
There are legitimate questions surrounding Hunter Biden's Ukraine ties that should be followed through on, says Arizona Senate Martha McSally, Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Treasury Department complied with a Republican-controlled Senate inquiry into Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine and handed over highly sensitive financial records and "evidence' of questionable origin," a report on Thursday said.

Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, has been a favorite target for President Trump and other Republicans who use him as an example of an extreme case of crony capitalism. He once held a $50,000-a-month job with Ukrainian gas giant, Burisima Holdings while his father served under then-President Obama. His father was tasked with handling Ukraine policy at the time.

Joe Biden, who is running for president, has consistently said his son did nothing wrong.

Yahoo News first reported that the Treasury Department began to turn over the documents related to the Senate inquiry late last year.

Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Ron. Johnson, R-Wisc., the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, requested the records in the form of a suspicious activity report, also known as a SARs. They also requested financial records through FinCEN, which is a branch of the Treasury Department that eyes money laundering.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who sits on the Finance Committee, told Yahoo News that the swift response from Treasury is a "blatant double standard" considering how the Trump administration responded to Democrats' effort to obtain documents and witness testimony in his impeachment trial.

"The administration told House Democrats to go pound sand when their oversight authority was mandatory while voluntarily cooperating with the Senate Republicans’ sideshow at lightning speed," a spokesman from Wyden told the website.

Grassley refused to identify what information Treasury provided when reached by the New York Times, but said through a spokesman, "It's unfortunate that Democrats whom we’ve kept in the loop on our investigations would recklessly seek to interfere with legitimate government oversight."

Grassely and Johnson announced in a letter Wednesday they are also seeking “records of Hunter Biden’s travel while he was under U.S. Secret Service protection as they continue to investigate potential conflicts of interest to boost his business ventures in Ukraine and China."

"We write to request information about whether Hunter Biden used government-sponsored travel to help conduct private business, to include his work for Rosemont Seneca and related entities in China and Ukraine," the senators wrote, referring to the company co-founded by the younger Biden.

Trump's impeachment trial was based on a phone call he had with his Ukrainian counterpart where he asked him to investigate the Bidens' dealings in the country. Democrats alleged that Trump withheld military funding in order to put pressure on Kiev. Trump denied any wrongdoing, was impeached in the House and acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial.

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to an after-hours email from Fox News
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top